Cooperation agreements and MoUs under the Belt and Road Initiative

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is often subject of controversial debates. Something that frequently heats up the minds and ignites political debates are governmental-level bilateral signed BRI-MoUs (Memorandum of Understanding), which not only promise cooperation within the framework of BRI, but also substantiate the legitimacy of the initiative. This was seen only recently, when the Australian state of Victoria decided to sign a MoU with China on the BRI. While some stated that signing this MoU is no big deal as the furor over Victoria’s MoU with China overlooks that – in Beijing’s eyes – the BRI is already at work in Australia, neither federal Labor nor the federal government were amused about Victoria’s solo run.

How many Belt and Road MoUs are already signed?

There is no official list or comprehensive compilation on which countries or organizations already have signed BRI-MoUs with China. But when reading Chinese state media during the last year, chances were high to at least once a week find a picture of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, signing a MoU on BRI. According to state-run Xinhua, so far, China has signed 123 cooperation documents on the Belt and Road development with 105 countries in Asia, Africa, Europe, Latin America, and the South Pacific region, and 26 such documents with 29 international organizations.

Structure of Belt and Road MoUs

Even if there are differences in the detailed designs of the MoUs, the basic structure of the agreements is similar. After agreeing on enhancing (policy) coordination and deepening mutually beneficial cooperation, both signing parties reach an “understanding” of cooperating on the five cooperation priorities of BRI 1. Policy coordination, 2. Facilities connectivity, 3. Unimpeded trade, 4. Financial integration, 5. People-to-people bonds. The five priorities are “guided by the principles of wide consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits”. Genereally speaking, cooperation can cover a wide range of fields such as joint transportation infrastructure development, joint set-up of industrial parks, establishment of sister-city networks, trade and investment promotion, financial cooperation (such as strategic cooperation with the Asia Infrastructure and Investment Bank, AIIB) or the joint collaboration in regional initiatives.

Are Belt and Road MoUs legally binding?

At the end of the documents (see e.g. BRI-MoU China-Victoria or BRI-MoU China-Latvia), both parties agree that the document is not legally binding. But even if not legally binding, according to Chris Devonshire-Ellis, “certain elements within the MoU could be interpreted by either party, and especially the Chinese. Such interpretations can, in fact, influence the way in which China views statements made within the MoU, and regard these as important in future diplomatic talks. In short, the purpose of these non-legally binding MoU is to influence, rather than direct.”

“The MoU appear largely benign; however, it does contain the seeds of what could, in future, be used as diplomatic tools in terms of insisting that agreements have been reached over certain areas.” (Chris Devonshire-Ellis)

Countries and organizations, which officially pledged support to the Belt and Road Initiative (by MoUs or Joint Statements/Communiques)

*this list is not complete and is being updated continuously

CountryTypeYear
AfghanistanJoint Statement2018
African UnionMoU2018
AlbaniaMoU2017
AlgeriaMoU2018
Antigua and BarbudaMoU2018
Arab Chambers of CommerceMoU2017
AserbaijanMoU2015
BahrainMoU2018
BahrainMoUMoU2018
BoliviaMoU2018
Bosnia and HerzegovinaMoU2017
BulgariaMoU2015
CameroonMoU2018
ChileMoU2018
Costa RicaMoU2018
Cote d'IvoireMoU2018
CroatiaMoU2017
Czech RepublicMoU2015
EgyptMoU2016
EthopiaMoU2018
European UnionJoint Statement
FijiMoU2018
FinlandJoint Declaration2017
FranceJoint Declaration2018
FranceJoint Declaration2018
GhanaMoU2018
GreeceMoU2018
GrenadaMoU2018
GuyanaMoU2018
HungaryMoU2015
IndonesiaJoint Statement2015
IsraelMoU2017
KazakhstanJoint Declaration2015
KenyaMoU2018
LatviaMoU2016
LebanonMoU2017
LibyaMoU2018
MadagascarMoU2017
MaledivesJoint Communique2017
MaltaMoU2018
MontenegroMoU2017
MoroccoMoU2017
MyanmarJoint Communique2016
New ZealandMoA2017
NigeriaMoU2018
NiueMoU2018
OmanMoU2018
PakistanJoint Statement2018
PanamaMoU2017
Papua New GuineaJoint Communique2016
PhilippinesJoint Statement2017
PolandMoU2015
RomaniaMoU2015
RwandaMoU2018
SamoaMoU2018
SenegalMoU2018
SerbiaMoU2015
SeychellesMoU2018
Sierra LeoneMoU2018
SingaporeMoU2018
SlovakiaMoU2015
SomaliaMoU2018
South AfricaMoU2015
ThailandJoint Communique2014
Timor-LesteJoint Statement2014
TongaJoint Communique, MoU2018
Trinidad and TobagoMoU2018
TunesiaMoU2018
TurkeyMoU2015
UNDPMoU2016
UNECEMoU2017
United Arab EmiratesFramework Agreement2017
Victoria, AustraliaMoU2018
VanuatuMoU2018
PortugalMoU2018

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *